Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Zimmerman Not Guilty (Read 19478 times)

Even a civil trial that might follow -- the defendant starts that with a presumption of innocence. Of course, the burden to prove guilt here is lower, because we aren't looking at taking away their freedom. So, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt is decided on a "more likely than not" sort of basis.

a bloody nose? a couple scratches on the back of his head? no blood on the "assailant's" hands? no medical attention required? Not much of an "upper hand" and surely, one would think, not reaching the heights of needing deadly force as Zimmerman was no where near being killed or receiving great bodily harm.

This "stand your ground" law (which the defense did NOT invoke; although the judge did erroneously use the phrase in the jury instructions about basic self defense claim) definitely needs some correcting

Zimmerman invoked it the night of the incident.

I think you have mistakenly took what I was saying as agreeing that Zimmerman had a right to take Trayvon's life. That's not so. I was simply stating that once Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, under Florida law (stand your ground), he had a right to use deadly force. This is why he was found not guilty. I mean how is one to theorize, let alone disprove, what Zimmerman felt that night?

As I mentioned earlier and others have also, I feel Trayvon should have had just as much right to stand his ground too. But, once again, the one with the gun wins.

Years ago when I took a concealed weapons course in Florida, which was a prerequisite for carrying a weapon, the instructor told us if you shoot someone shoot to kill. It was not necessarily just to stop a imminent threat either, it was also to prevent the main witness (the person you killed) from testifying against you. I found this odd and it left me rather conflicted. I no longer have guns in my house.

With what I mentioned above, I don't necessarily think Zimmerman had this in mind when he shot his weapon, however, it was made known during the trial that Zimmerman was well versed on the stand your ground law. His teacher testified to this fact.

I'll also go as far as to say he's not even a racist, however, I feel that his calculations and behaviors that night were racially motivated. This is essentially why a 17 year old, minding his own business, was "justifiably killed".... edited to add... Which is murder in my book.

I agree. Although we are talking about legality here, so what is the practical difference here, from a legal POV? Whether "innocent" or "not guilty" -- he has no legal penalty to pay.

If our system were reversed and the burden of proof was on the defendant (i.e. prove your innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt) - would one still be pointing out that a verdict of "not innocent" does not equal "guilty"? Either wording produces the same result -- you go to jail.

The only time I see folks bring up the "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" line is when they disagree with a verdict. If you want to get real picky -- a "guilty" verdict doesn't mean one is NOT innocent - we read about people being released from prison because they, in fact, were NOT guilty.

So -- bottomline (and I'm not doing this to change anyone's mind -- just to ensure clarity of my point) -- there is no practical difference in this legal hair-splitting. Hell, there really isn't any real "legal" difference when you get right down to it.

M

Mike, I think you and I are in agreement on this case. There are tangents in this discussion. I was simply addressing the subject that Bugs brought up.When you get to know me better in Chicago I think you will see that I do that often. Probably much too often. Bring up the topic of a hang nail and I'll eventually get around to hang gliding or hang up.

Years ago when I took a concealed weapons course in Florida, which was a prerequisite for carrying a weapon, the instructor told us if you shoot someone shoot to kill. It was not necessarily just to stop a imminent threat either, it was also to prevent the main witness (the person you killed) from testifying against you.

I'll also go as far as to say he's not even a racist, however, I feel that his calculations and behaviors that night were racially motivated. This is essentially why a 17 year old, minding his own business, was "justifiably killed".... edited to add... Which is murder in my book.

I think you have mistakenly took what I was saying as agreeing that Zimmerman had a right to take Trayvon's life. That's not so. I was simply stating that once Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, under Florida law (stand your ground), he had a right to use deadly force. This is why he was found not guilty. I mean how is one to theorize, let alone disprove, what Zimmerman felt that night?

ah, that's good. I had misunderstood you.

However, as an armchair quarterback, and something the prosecution should have brought up, IMHO a few cuts on the back of a head and a bloody nose does not equate to "life in danger". Obviously the wording of that law leaves a lot to desire. some might say that a black boy turning on a person and asking why them they were following might make them feel their life was in danger. Really?? where does the line get drawn? as I've said before clearly these laws need a lot more correcting to make them applicable to real world situations. As they are all someone has to do is say they felt their life was in danger - with no real proof - and viola! murder is legal.

Luckily the laws in SC say that I can only "stand my ground" in my house, on my property, inside a car, or in my place of business. I think that covers the "castle doctrine" quiet well without allowing vigilantes to roam the streets.

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

"... IMHO a few cuts on the back of a head and a bloody nose does not equate to "life in danger". ..."

The three EMTs who treated his wounds at the scene, the PA who treated him at his physician's office the following day, and Dr. Di Maio who is one of the country's leading forensic pathologists all corroborated that his nose was in fact broken, not merely bloodied... Di Maio even pointed out during the trial that you can see the broken cartilage actually protruding out of the left side of his nose in the picture taken at the scene.

Also, they were not merely cuts (incisions) on the back of his head... there were two distinct lacerations which were caused by having his head slammed into the sidewalk with great enough force to rip open the skin.... twice. All total, Dr. Di Maio estimated no fewer than six separate prominent injuries to George's head and a myriad of other scrapes and punctate wounds.

He was being beaten, and even the state seemingly conceded that point... ASA John Guy gave a memorable demonstration of the beating by straddling a mannequin on the courtroom floor.

Now... put yourself in his shoes. You're Neighborhood Watch and you've just witnessed a young man entering the private gated community through the bushes rather than through the secure resident entrance. He doesn't live there, he's not accompanied by a resident, he appears to be high on something, you call 311 to report the individual, and four minutes after he had disappeared off into the darkness, he's suddenly back and has you pinned to the ground and is viciously beating you. Unlike the armchair online jurists, he didn't have the luxury of sixteen months and the benefit of hindsight to identify and mull over all of his available options from the comfort and safety of home... he literally had only seconds to decide whether this stranger who was beating him meant to do him further harm.

And all of the talk about how he shouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place... that amounts to rationalizing that by leaving the safety of his vehicle he provided his assailant with the opportunity to attack him. Would folks also rationalize that if a woman were to get into a car with a stranger, she has somehow consented to being raped. No, of course not. A momentary lapse in judgement doesn't negate a person's innate right to defend him or herself.

He doesn't live there, ... he appears to be high on something, you call 311 to report the individual, and four minutes after he had disappeared off into the darkness, he's suddenly back and has you pinned to the ground and is viciously beating you.

what a load or malarky!! how can one tell just by looking that someone didn't live there... or was high. You are making some terrible assumptions there, that simply can't be known. And Trayvon didn't "disappear into the darkness", he took another path in the complex to avoid someone following him. Please remember he was just barely a 4-day 17 yr old kid being "stalked" by a guy in a truck that was now following on foot. Zimmerman went around the building and came up Trayvon, not the other way around.

Would folks also rationalize that if a woman were to get into a car with a stranger, she has somehow consented to being raped.

bad analogy. Trayvon didn't get into any vehicle. The better comparison would be, does a young girl walking down a sidewalk, being stalked/followed by a stranger, consent to being raped? I would imagine that most of us would say an emphatic NO.

And all of the talk about how he shouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place... that amounts to rationalizing that by leaving the safety of his vehicle he provided his assailant with the opportunity to attack him.

assailant?!? you cannot PRE-judge a teenager walking in his own neighbor as an assailant. Once again you like others are trying to re-write history so the murdered person is a criminal - without that person committing any crimes.

btwthough I will grant you that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, "lacerations" and "cuts" mean the same thing.

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

Now... put yourself in his shoes. You're Neighborhood Watch and you've just witnessed a young man entering the private gated community through the bushes rather than through the secure resident entrance. He doesn't live there, he's not accompanied by a resident, he appears to be high on something, you call 311 to report the individual, and four minutes after he had disappeared off into the darkness, he's suddenly back and has you pinned to the ground and is viciously beating you.

All right Mickey Spillane.... Though the first line sounds more like Miss Manners.

Meanwhile I just watched that slap-dash and rather gripping Sharknado filled with campy lines like those above....

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

"I really thought the state should have responded better to that demonstration."

ASA John Guy was the hunky little prosecutor and it was the state's demonstration.

And frankly, McDreamy Funsize mounting a doll for an audience of all female jurors came across as being more arousing than threatening, and I'm guessing that may have been their intent. It was a Jerry Seinfeld making out at Schindler's List moment of guilt... half the people watching probably wished they were the doll.

But the mere fact that the state was even finally conceding at this point that Trayvon was on top of George and beating him represented an extreme departure from the state's originally claiming that it was a 90 degree angle shot fired straight front to back from a standing position. The evidence simply didn't bear that theory out.

And there was no way going forward from that point that a jury was ever going to find it unreasonable for a person in that position having received the injuries that he had to not be in fear of further injury...

Yeah. But the defense had this narrative of Zimmerman being justifiably suspicious because a teenage boy was wandering around in the rain and how that could easily be construed as a thief on the prowl...

When I was a teenager in suburbia I was out in the rain all the time.

Back in the innocent times before "neighbourhood patrols" and everyone and their mother with a gun, the dangers were dogs and their poop.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

And there was no way going forward from that point that a jury was ever going to find it unreasonable for a person in that position having received the injuries that he had to not be in fear of further injury...

Especially if you consider how one juror has come forward and during interviews refers to Zimmerman as "George" and Trayvon as "that boy". You and I see very different scenarios.

I see a young, unarmed teenager who was going home. You see an assailant who was sneaking through the bushes. I see a man with a gun, who probably would not have followed someone if he did not have it. You see a victim who was ambushed, and luckily had his 9 at his side.

I would like to think the "stand your ground" law was the real reason the verdict was another pile of shit slapped on two grieving parents' face. I don't know how I would take it if someone told me a loved one died simply because someone else thought something. But, when you break it down, that was the true nature of what occurred before the fatal interaction took place. People happy with the verdict conveniently ignore how Trayvon must have felt that night. He must have possessed some superhuman powers, unlike most 17 year olds, to be so fearless while being followed by a stranger. I guess he was simply a "thug" doing what "thugs" do. It's this line of thinking that makes it ok, and will be the main reason something like this happens again.

"The Retreat at Twin Lakes" may be a gated community but its hardly a leafy verdant community filled with dark and mysterious places to hide and get up to mischief. Looks to me like a rather spartan and dreary complex twisting upon itself, of identical townhouses and lanes where one could easily pass a moment trying to figure out which way to go to get "home". Which is where Martin was going....

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

But the mere fact that the state was even finally conceding at this point that Trayvon was on top of George and beating him represented an extreme departure from the state's originally claiming that it was a 90 degree angle shot fired straight front to back from a standing position. The evidence simply didn't bear that theory out.

Here's something I haven't been able to understand.

If Zimmerman fired the shot while Trayvon was on top of him, why wasn't Zimmerman covered in Trayvon's blood?

And if Trayvon was no longer on top of him, that means he had gotten off him and stopped hitting him so Zimmerman was no longer in immediate danger. Couldn't Zimmerman, at that point, have simply waved the gun and only threatened to shoot if Trayvon came at him again? If he did that, surely Trayvon would have run away?

He must have possessed some superhuman powers, unlike most 17 year olds, to be so fearless while being followed by a stranger.

Adrenalin will give a person extra strength when in fear of their safety, or the safety of a loved one. We've all heard stories of how a small person can suddenly lift a car off a toddler, for example.

The whole thing sucks from beginning to the end. I do believe Zimmerman got away with murder. Not premeditated murder, but definitely the wholly unnecessary - and not accidental - killing of another human being.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I thought Zimmerman had Martin's blood on his shirt. Still, when someone is shot bleeding depends on the caliber of the bullet. Also was Martin's shirt and hoody in the way of the blood flow. Zimmerman's lawyer also showed the powder pattern on the shirt and on the body was consistent with someone being shot while leaning over the victim. The victim is Zimmerman, the attacker was Martin.

I also agree with you that if Zimmerman could simply wave his firearm at Martin and frighten Martin away that should end the situation. I've been in a few of those myself. So, once the threat is removed the shot should not be taken. Unfortunately Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was over him pummeling his face with his fists. Zimmerman was correct shooting Martin in self defense.

And, there's this. A juror comes forward on Good Morning America, and she says Zimmerman got away with murder. She shows her face. You can listen/read what she has to say about what the jury thought and why they found him not guilty.

Ok, here's what happened. I didn't watch the video from their web story. I watched a one minute clip on their newscast. I assumed it was the same. Although, there is the article. The clip was detailed and gave her explanation and views. I'm trying to find that clip. The interview was taped for Friday's Good Morning America, with portions shown tonight on Thursday's Nightline.

She says she wanted to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder and would have caused a hung jury. However, she said while she believed he was guilty, she said under the jury instructions, she couldn't say whether he meant to kill him. I don't understand that. If you shoot someone, you have the expectation they could die. She said Zimmerman will have to answer to God. Oh, I loathe when people say that.

Adrenalin will give a person extra strength when in fear of their safety, or the safety of a loved one. We've all heard stories of how a small person can suddenly lift a car off a toddler, for example.

That is a good point and something I never really thought about.. I was being sarcastic with the superhuman description and the thug part.

Something that was never really touched during the trial was the fact that Zimmerman said the reason he shot Trayvon is because the teen grabbed his gun. During the trial the DNA expert said none of Trayvon's DNA was found on the weapon and that only Zimmerman's was on it. The prosecution never really jumped on this. On the other hand, the defense questioned the expert as to whether the rain could have washed Trayvon's DNA off the weapon.

This is something Zimmerman always contended-- that he shot Trayvon because he was about to take the weapon from him. However, this fact was merely glanced over during the trial and it focused primarily on the beating Zimmerman took.

The gun was holstered on the inner thigh. If Trayvon had mounted him as Zimmerman claimed how could he see the gun? He's raining down blows and reaching back for the gun at the same time? This is one incredibly strong 156 pound, just turned 17 year old boy. He was one inch taller than me, and when I was 160 lbs. I bordered on being too thin. Hell I'm even thin at 180.

Another point I found interesting, that is also unimportant at this time, is that Trayvon had one small mark on his fourth finger. Having been in a few fights in grade school my knuckles always opened up and my hands were always a mess afterwards.

Anywho, I guess that's the end of my rant on this subject.

I also want to show how contradictory and biased I can be on this topic. My oldest daughter's boyfriend was shot and killed in April. He wasn't a good guy and if you google his name you'll see he was charged with homicide-willful kill during a felony in 2006. He actually beat my daughter when she was pregnant with his child. I found out later that he had beat her on numerous occasions. She lost the child to miscarriage and he never once came to the hospital. I never felt so helpless as a father watching her cry in a way that I never want to see one of my girls do again.

How this guy was even free to do this is beyond any explanation. He had a criminal record a mile long. My daughter, who was 19 at the time, was going to school at USF and in love with him.

Her brothers and I wanted to get our hands on him so bad, but she protected him. She wouldn't even file a police report after her mother and I begged her to. She finally came to her senses and broke up with him in February.

I'll admit, I wished very bad things on him. And, when I found out he had been killed I was content in a strange way. I've never told my daughter about that aspect while consoling her. She was devastated. I was thankful.... It's one of those bittersweet moments that I feel ashamed of.

In addition to the stolen property, drugs, burglary tools, vandalism, and other issues that the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department reported, in addition to the fighting and beating up classmates for snitching, and in addition to the field contact report with the Miami Gardens Police Department, Martin was also actively looking to purchase an illegal gun after being suspended from school.

none of which Zimmerman knew when he shot Trayvon. Besides Zimmerman was no saint either.

Regardless of that information, we have a judicial system that is supposed to handle these issues. It's not up to a vigilante to mete out "justice" on the streets like it's the wild west - especially since nothing in that laundry list you posted is deserving of the death penalty. Many a 16/17 year old has been a "troubled youth", had a run in with the law, and gone on to become a better person/citizen - an option not afforded to this child because of an over-zealous citizen who had no business/authority stalking this youth.

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

In addition to the stolen property, drugs, burglary tools, vandalism, and other issues that the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department reported, in addition to the fighting and beating up classmates for snitching, and in addition to the field contact report with the Miami Gardens Police Department, Martin was also actively looking to purchase an illegal gun after being suspended from school.

This was a dangerous and violent young man.

I don't quite get your zealous need to portray Trayvon in such an evil light.

The undisputed facts are that he WAS unarmed, he WAS walking someplace that he had every right to be, Mr. Zimmerman DID kill Trayvon and the had Mr. Zimmerman followed the instructions of the 911 operator there would have been NO ALTERCATION OF ANY KIND (and aside from some cuts and bruises, there are no FACTS around exactly what happened in said altercation).

Now -- based on my understanding of Florida law (admittedly limited) and what I've heard of the trial -- I think the jurors got it right. I'm not happy about that fact -- but there you have it.

Constructing Martin as a thug is necessary in the stories that make sense to poz91 and others who think Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Zimmerman himself constructed such a thug story. Obama explained how this operates.

Of course its possible Martin was a thug but its difficult to tell if he was, or if he was a teenager "playing at" thug. I doubt many white people discussing this have much ability or interest to understand the difference.

A lot of people are not alarmed that Martin was "playing" at cop, because a lot of people believe in guns to "protect" themselves. They believe this to their core.

What the libtards like me are saying is that it doesn't matter if he was a thug or not when the topic is: he was an unarmed minor walking home and zimmerman was playing at cop, had a gun, and profiled him as dangerous and suspicious and shot him dead.

People aren't going to rest easy with a story that doesn't sum up easily, has a judicial result that seems unsatisfactory even when its "correct application of the law." So, people simplify, simplify. Zimmerman the good samaritan, in an act of self protection, killed a thug. Or Zimmerman is a racist who hunted and murdered an angelic black boy.

Happily, the discourse in Forums.poz.com isn't so stupid.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 09:24:55 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

So, people simplify, simplify. Zimmerman the good samaritan, in an act of self protection, killed a thug. Or Zimmerman is a racist who hunted and murdered an angelic black boy.

if you take out the modifers that you even added (neither racist or angelic are known/proveable factors), it can be simplified further to it's core - and I think this is what disturbs many people : "Zimmerman hunted and murdered a boy"

I'll never understand why the prosecutor did not dwell on that version of the situation. What were the motives/intent of an armed grown-up stalking/pursuing a teenager in the dark? It has always seemed to me that the "crime" started there and ended with the undisputed situation of Zimmerman shooting and killing an unarmed teenager - a situation that in most any other venue, would have been generally known as murder.

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

George Zimmerman's wife wants him to pay for a permanent life insurance policy with her named as the beneficiary.

Shellie Zimmerman asked in the divorce petition released Friday that a judge order George Zimmerman to pay the premiums on the policy.

She also is seeking an equal distribution of their checking accounts, trusts, partnerships and any unknown assets.

She asked that a judge prevent him from selling off any property.

“They really only have debt, they don’t have any substantial assets, but the biggest issue and the thing that’s going to be fought over is whether she has any future rights or any negotiating issues going on concerning a possible book or movie, or some sort of publicity deal, that could actually be considered an asset,” said legal analyst Mark NeJame.

In an interview on "Good Morning America," Zimmerman said George Zimmerman was verbally and emotionally abusive.

"It’s just time," Zimmerman said. "I have supported him for so long and neglected myself for too long and I feel like I’m finally starting to feel empowered again.”

The petition says the couple separated a month after George Zimmerman was acquitted in July of any crime for fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Shellie Zimmerman said her husband was very selfish, and she thought he was making some reckless decisions since his acquittal.

Shellie Zimmerman pleaded guilty Aug. 28 to perjury charges. A judge sentenced her to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service for lying about the couple's finances during her husband's original bond hearing after his first arrest on second-degree murder charges.

She recently told ABC she believes George's version of the events leading to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.